Joel Killion

God, as Creator and Sovereign of all things, owns all things (Ex. 19:5; Ps. 24:1; 50:7-12; 1 Cor. 10:26). And He has delegated the stewardship of property to mankind, which he created in His image (Gen. 1:26-28) to tend and watch His garden (Gen. 2:8, 15). When Adam and Eve disobeyed the Lord, God banished them from the Garden of Eden and posted a “No Trespassing” sign in the form of Cherubims and a flaming sword to keep them out, giving them a quick lesson on the reality of private property. This doctrine was preserved as God’s way to order and prosper society, which is why he established specific property laws. For example, He condemned the accumulation of property through theft (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 19:14; 27:17; Job 24:2; Prov. 22:28; 23:10; Hos. 5:10; Eph. 4:28), the confiscation of property by governmental decree (1 Kings 21), and the willful destruction of property by the envious (Gen. 26:12, 17). To Him, these are lawless acts, damaging to an orderly society.

In the early Church, as many Christians voluntarily chose to sell their goods and give to the needy, Ananias and Sapphira sold some of their land and gave some of the profit to the apostles, pretending they had given it all. Yet, in spite of their actions, Peter upheld the doctrine of private property when he said, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” (Acts 5:4) As a result of their conduct, God punished them, not for not giving all, but for lying about what they gave.

In this light, the Biblical principle of private property is clearly antithetical to the idea of collectivism (a.k.a. Communism, Socialism, Marxism, etc.), which is mentioned in Scripture in principle. For instance, in 1 Samuel 8:5-18, after the children of Israel asked Samuel to give them a king like all the nations, Samuel prayed and God showed him “the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” Then, God told him to tell the people what he was shown: “This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you…he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants…he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants…he will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.” Notice, it says, “He will take…and give…he will take…and give…he will take.” In other words, as the king, through government fiat, he will “legally” steal and redistribute your goods. This is the essence of collectivism. Also, in Proverbs 1:13-17 Solomon tells his son to avoid those whose feet “run to evil” and “make haste to shed blood” saying, “We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse…”So, in this passage, we see those who work together to find and forcefully take “precious substance” and put it into “one purse” so they can communally fill their houses with spoil. Again, this is collectivism.

And what is the motivation behind this ideology? Well, as these passages make clear, the motivation is envy, greed, and covetousness, or, as Paul the apostle said, “the love of money” which “is the root of all kinds of evil” that will pierce the greedy and faithless with “many sorrows” (1 Tim. 6:10). Of course, those who know history, know that every single person and country that has embraced “the love of money” has been pierced (in more ways than one) with “many sorrows.” This is why the Lord, out of love for us, commands us in His Word to put off envy, greed, and covetousness, which are all rooted in selfishness, and to put on love, which is selfless, kind, and charitable. It was this kind of love that motivated Christians in the first century to privately and voluntarily sell their possessions and distribute the proceeds to all who were in need (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35). The Lord has always designated charity toward the needy as a personal, voluntary act (Lev. 19:10; Prov. 28:27; 29:7; Matt. 19:21; 25:31-46; Lk. 3:11; Acts 20:35; Gal. 6:2; Eph. 4:28; 1 Jn. 3:17), and it is through this medium that true “fairness” and “equality” is achieved (2 Cor. 8:13-15). Never, at any point in Scripture, does God enlist the State as a tool for charity. Jesus’ command to love our neighbor as we love ourselves is to the individual, not the State, and it is through His people that He works to help the hurting and downtrodden (Ps. 37:39; 121:1-2).

It’s time to choose. Will we follow the will of God or men? Will we adhere to the timeless principles of God’s Word or to the ideals of this world? Will we raise the standard or settle for a Nanny State?

Written by Joel M. Killion

Note: This article includes paraphrases from “God vs Socialism” by Dr. Joel McDurmon of AmericanVision.org.

Like this:

He was upset! He couldn’t understand why I wasn’t buying everything he was saying. He was so convinced that fracking was altogether bad for public health and I simply wasn’t convinced. Why? Because I didn’t have an opinion one way or another. I hadn’t yet done my own research. Of course, our little Facebook chat got me curious, which is why I started doing my own homework that very day. I looked at every side of the issue, and, in time, I came to form my own perspective on the matter. Needless to say, I am still learning and am willing to change my view if and when the right evidence is presented. With that said, I am convinced that if someone will take the time to study the facts about fracking, will research the composition of the various ingredients involved in the procedure, and will consider the legitimate solutions and innovations that are already in place to prevent harm to the public and the environment, they will find that it is not a danger as they have been told.

First, for the sake of clarity, let’s define our terms: “Fracking – or hydraulic fracturing – involves drilling an L-shaped well thousands of feet beneath the earth’s surface and blasting a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into it to create fractures in shale rock formations to release the natural gas trapped inside” (Burrows 4). Now, as you can probably imagine, fracking has both friends and enemies; I’m sure you would agree that anything related to oil and the environment tends to bring out the “best” in people. On the one hand, those who support it, laud it as a key to energy independence, an improved job market, and an economic shot in the arm for America. On the other hand, anti-natural gas activists are concerned that fracking causes groundwater contamination and cancer. There are even some who blame fracking for causing earthquakes – an assumption that has been squarely refuted by Professor Richard Davies with the Durham Energy Institute of Durham University (“The Study”).

Unfortunately, since most people do not research this topic enough to know what is true and what isn’t, the fear factor from the environmental activists is very powerful in swaying the uninformed mind. Plus, when Hollywood superstars like Matt Damon make comments and produce movies that oppose fracking, it is hard for some people to resist the message (Klimas). However, the moment anyone decides to dig deeper, below the surface, they find that not only are there two sides to those environmental concerns but that those concerns are overblown and oftentimes false. For instance, Dr. Vikram Rao, executive director of the Research Triangle Energy Consortium and author of Shale Gas: The Promise and the Peril, says the concern over methane intrusions into drinking water is unfounded since baseline testing of the water prior to drilling has not been done to prove that the water wasn’t already tainted beforehand (Kokai) – this has been confirmed by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, which has stated that “The lack of baseline studies in areas of shale gas development makes it difficult to evaluate the long term, cumulative effects and risks associated with hydraulic fracturing” (“New Study”). Also, in the case of Dimock, Pennsylvania, while many environmentalists have complained of water pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a letter to Dimock residents made it very clear that fracking is not the problem (Markay), a conclusion that has been echoed by the American Association for Advancement in Science (“Report”). Then, when you throw in the fact that Josh Fox, director of the Oscar-nominated, anti-fracking documentary entitled Gasland, admitted that he left out certain facts – saying they were “not relevant” – in order to bolster the premise of his film, it is clear that ideology has become more important than science (McAleer). As for the cancer causing concerns, Professor Simon Craddock Lee of medical anthropology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, have said they have seen no cancer spikes in areas where fracking is being done (“Major”).

As for the concern regarding the chemicals that are injected into the shale rock formations, it is imperative for the general public to be educated in what those chemicals actually are. Once we understand all that goes into this solution, many of the common objections may be resolved. With that said, it must be clarified that the “overall… concentration of additives in most slickwater fracturing fluids is a relatively consistent 0.5% to 2% with water making up 98% to 99.2%” (“Chemical”). As for the chemical composition, the Department of Energy and the Groundwater Protection Council has reported on “the major material components used in the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas shales” (see table 1).

Table 1

“Typical Solutions Used in Hydraulic Fracturing” organized by Compound, Purpose, and Common Application

As you can tell, many of the chemicals listed in Table 1 are also found in consumer products. Moreover, according to FracFocus.org, “The make‐up of fracturing fluid varies from one geologic basin or formation to another… (but) The difference between additive formulations may be as small as a change in concentration of a specific compound” (“Chemical”). So, it seems this chemical compound isn’t nearly as dangerous as many have been led to believe.

With that said, another reason hydraulic fracturing is proving to be safe is because drillers are being held accountable, both governmentally and within their industry. The American Petroleum Institute (API), which is a trade association that represents and provides ever-improving regulations for 400 companies in the oil and gas industry, works closely with federal and state governments to ensure adherence to the highest production standards (“Safe”). In addition, “there are existing federal regulations that address oil and gas drilling and environmental protection. These rules cover all aspects of the process, including well permitting, well materials and construction, air emissions, wildlife protection, safe disposition of used hydraulic fracturing fluids, water testing, chemical recordkeeping and reporting” (“Safe”). Also, in relation to the state of North Carolina, Senate Bill 76, which is currently being contested, “requires them (drillers) to post three types of bonds before drilling in the state – one ensuring they have sufficient funds to complete a project and not abandon it midway, one providing cleanup funds to the state in case of an accident, and one compensating the landowner in case drilling damages their property” (Burrows 4).

In conclusion, when we take the time to look at the evidence regarding fracking, when we have the willingness to study the processes and chemicals involved, and when we see all that is being done to prevent harm to the public and the environment, we can rest assured that, contrary to Chicken Little’s rantings, the sky isn’t really falling at all. Instead, when we realize that “The United States is estimated to have enough natural gas to meet 100 percent of current domestic demand for at least 90 years” (“Fast”), and that our great state of North Carolina has an estimated 42 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, we can relax and look forward to a bright and hopeful future (Burrows 4).

Like this:

The Declaration of Independence says our Creator gave us certain unalienable rights and that government exists primarily to secure for every individual the exercise of those rights. One of these rights is the right to “keep and bear Arms.” The Second Amendment is the constitutional embodiment of the Biblical right of self-defense (See Exodus 22; Judges 5:8; 1 Samuel 13:19-13; 25:13; 2 Chronicles 17; Nehemiah 4:17-18, 21, 23; Esther 8:11; 9:1-5; Psalm 18:34; 82:4; 144:11; Proverbs 24:11; 25:26; Luke 22:36-38; 1 Timothy 5:8) – this is just one of many self-evident, human rights rooted in Scripture.

The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In defining the “Militia” George Mason said that it consists “…of the whole people, except for a few public officers.” Richard Henry Lee echoed this when he wrote that “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” “We the People” are, by necessity, responsible for protecting liberty. As the Declaration of Independence states, whenever any form of government fails to secure the God-given right of men, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [the People] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” So, ladies and gentleman, it is our duty and divine right to protect ourselves, our property, and our freedom, and this right shall not be “infringed,” violated, encroached upon, transgressed, limited, or broken.

As U.S. Air Force veteran Kevin Tully said, the Second Amendment is in the Constitution “…to give the people the power to keep tyranny at bay. [Tyranny is] not a wolf that dies. It’s a wolf that breeds, and it may not always be in your backyard, but it’s always looming on the horizon… and that’s why the Founding Fathers wrote it the way they did… The threat of tyranny is no less than at the turn of the century in the 1900s or 1800s or 1700s.” (Note: Tully served in Desert Shield, three tours for Operation Southern Watch, and a tour in Panama)

As Franklin County Sheriff Jerry W. Jones recently said, “The 2nd Amendment was not intended to secure the citizenry the right to hunt wild game; it was intended to assure the continuation of a Free State.”

Consider these other quotes:

“Homicide is required when it’s necessary for the defense of one’s person or one’s house and property. It is the great natural law of self-preservation that, as we have seen, cannot be repealed or superseded by any human institution. This law, however, is expressly recognized in the Constitution. Every man’s house is deemed by the law to be his castle, and the law, while it invests him with the power, it places on him the duty of commanding officer of his house (every man’s house in his castle) and if he is robbed in it, it will be esteemed his own default and negligence.” (James Wilson, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution)

“…To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms…” (Richard Henry Lee)

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“…Arms… discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.” (Thomas Paine)

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry)

The Constitution must never be “construed to authorize Congress to infringe… the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” (Samuel Adams)

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason)

“We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists.” (Patrick Henry)

“Never trust a government that doesn’t trust its own citizens with guns.” (Benjamin Franklin)

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” (Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840)

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. (Paraphrase of James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, from his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” (Patrick Henry)

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson)

In 1942, Adolf Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”

Like this:

We have it all wrong! Our modern political view of “Democrat” on the left versus “Republican” on the right is misleading because the political parties are rarely if ever principled. Likewise, the modern mismeasurement which puts communism at the extreme “left” and fascism at the extreme “right” is false because they are simply different names for similar forms of despotism – the police state.

The Founders, on the other hand, had a much more reasonable yardstick by which to gauge government. Here’s what it looked like: On the left-hand side is “Ruler’s Law” (a.k.a. tyranny, where there is too much government, too much political oppression, too much control), on the right-hand side is “No Law” (a.k.a. anarchy, where there is no government, no law, no control), and then, directly between the two is the balanced center or “medium point” of “People’s Law,” (a.k.a. “Common Law”) where Liberty is a reality through a Constitutional, Republican system of self-government. The first Justice of the Supreme Court, James Iredell, commented on this scale when he said, “There are two extremes equally dangerous to liberty. These are tyranny and anarchy. The medium between these two is the true government to protect the people…this Constitution is well calculated to guard against both these extremes.”

Under “Ruler’s Law,” the people are not equal but are divided into social and economic classes, where the thrust of government power is from the ruler down and not from the people upward, where government has the ever-growing power to give or remove the God-given rights of the people, and where rule is determined by the whimsical edicts of men rather than the fixed rule of law. In addition, with a centralized government, freedom is never considered a solution to anything, while problems are always solved by issuing new edicts, creating more bureaus, appointing more administrators, and charging the people more taxes to pay for these “services”; plus, those in power revel in luxury while the common people are enslaved by perpetual poverty, excessive taxation, stringent regulations, and a continuous existence of misery. Sound familiar?

On the other hand, “People’s Law” places the political power at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough to abuse the people; through this form of government, the people are the sovereign (through the local, state, and federal governments, in that order), rather than one person or group, while the rule of law (based on what the Declaration calls “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”) is fixed as a preserver and expander of individual freedom and rights. Also, it is the people who grant leadership temporarily and retract it straightforwardly, who are individually responsible for resolving their own problems (with the help of their family, their community, and, as a last resort, their government), and who possess unalienable rights that cannot be violated without risking the wrath of Divine and civil justice.

So, the question is – Are we willing to put principle before party and propaganda? When we hear the promises of politicians, can we ignore the (R), (D), or (I) beside their name and simply judge them, their rhetoric, their ideologies, and their agendas by whether or not they support “People’s Law” or “Ruler’s Law”? Are they loyal to their party or “We the People”? Do they believe in the power of the individual to pursue happiness for themselves or in the “ability” and “responsibility” of government to take care of and pursue happiness for the individual? Most of our leaders, on both sides of the political aisle, have forsaken the “People’s Law” of our Constitutional Republic, tightening their grip around Liberty’s neck while feeding tyranny with their unprincipled greed, corruption, and selfishness. We who love freedom and believe in Constitutionally limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility, are working within the Tea Party movement to restore Liberty (In truth, we are the true political moderates because we prefer the “medium point” or balanced center of Liberty that our Founders built America on). For the last many years, America has been devolving – like Rome and Greece of old – more and more toward tyranny, and we are concerned that our children and children’s children will not inherit a free country. If you share this burden, join us at Western Sizzlin every first Thursday at 6:00 pm as we work together to keep America free.

Resources

State

Disclaimers

The Wilson NC Tea Party (WNCTP) does not endorse candidates on the federal, state, or local levels. We are simply pointing our fellow citizens to the principles and values of our founding so that they will be able to vote, in the primary and general elections, for those candidates who are most aligned with those principles and values. With that said all candidate-related posts are for education purposes only.

Also, the views and opinions shared as comments on the WNCTP Blog, by its various members, do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the WNCTP leadership and volunteer base. Since the WNCTP is "Of The People, For The People, By The People" and believes in the First Amendment, we cannot and will not deny any member their right to "free speech" regarding their political and/or policy positions, but our tolerance of their views does not necessarily reflect consent.